TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed I.A.No.318 of 2016 in SA.SR.No.1326 of 2012, seeking for an amendment, by inserting the subsequent auction notice, dated 20.01.2016. I.A.No.319 of 2016, has also been filed seeking to stay all the proceedings pursuant to the sale notice, dated 20.01.2016, issued by the respondent Bank, for the proposed auction- cum-sale, scheduled on 02.03.2016. 3. The petitioner has further contended that though the learned counsel has approached the Presiding Officer as well as the Registry and mentioned the urgency ,his case has was not taken up and posted for hearing for the past four weeks,. The petitioner has further contended that the appeal has not been taken up for hearing. Contending inter alia that pending appeal, the subject property is sought to be sold by way of tendercum- auction, on 02.03.2016, he has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Authorized Officer, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Madurai / Respondent No.2, not to proceed with the sale notice dated 20.01.2016, in respect of a house property, situated in Door No.49, Deivasigamanipuram, Ward No.6, Dindigul Town. 4. When the matter came up yesterday, considering the submission of learned counsel appearing for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Thus the fact remains that SASR.No.1326 of 2012 itself has been dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Going through the averments made in the supporting affidavit and after hearing the learned counsel for the bank, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has not disclosed full facts, on the contra, the dismissal of SASR.No.1326 of 2012 has been suppressed. Added further, he has also stated that SA.SR.No.1326 of 2012 is still pending on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and during pendency of the appeal, sale notice, dated 20.01.2016 has been issued. As regards suppression and equity, useful reference can be made to the following decisions:- (I) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120, the Supreme Court at Paragraphs 11 to 14, has held as follows: "11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270], which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for. In this case the bribe has no immediate relation to rectification, if rectification were asked, or to rescission in connection with a matter not in any way connected with the bribe. Therefore that point, which was argued with great strenuousness by counsel for the defendant, Hatt, appears to me to fail, and we have to consider the merits of the case. 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms: "1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.-In granting relief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449, at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, it has been held as follows: 33. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in the following words: "(I)t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance t....